Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

SF economist says gay marriage ban costs city

Thu Jan 7, 2010 3:00 PM EST
us-news, politics, us, gay, supreme-court, marriage, trial, gay-marriage, bill-clinton, san-francisco, marriage-trial, gay-marriage-trial
Lisa Leff, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 9 photos
<p>Stuart Gaffney, left, and John Lewis, same-sex partners for 22 years, huddle outside of the federal courthouse in San Francisco, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. A federal trial beginning on Monday in San Francisco will consider wether the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban in California is legal. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)</p>

Stuart Gaffney, left, and John Lewis, same-sex partners for 22 years, huddle outside of the federal courthouse in San Francisco, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. A federal trial beginning on Monday in San Francisco will consider wether the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban in California is legal. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Advertise | AdChoices

SAN FRANCISCO — A state ban on gay marriage is costing the city of San Francisco millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services, an economist testified Thursday in a lawsuit aimed at overturning the prohibition.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue.

He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner's employee health care plans.

"It's clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact on the city of San Francisco," he said. "These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but over the long term they can be powerful."

Egan testified during the fourth day of a federal trial on a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved by statewide voters in 2008.

The city was allowed to join the suit to demonstrate that governments bear some of the costs of the ban.

Egan said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them.

"I believe that the prohibition of marriage of same-sex couples is a form of discrimination, and it's reasonable to assume that if that prohibition were removed there would be over time a lessening of the discrimination those individuals see in their daily lives," he said.

The only hard financial loss number Egan cited was a $2.6 million annual decrease in hotel and sales tax revenue from weddings.

He based the figure on the 5,100 marriage licenses San Francisco issued to same-sex couples during a five-month period in 2008 when gay marriage was legal.

Hotel taxes went up then as did sales taxes related to weddings, he said.

In addition, if same-sex couples were recognized by the federal government and could file joint income tax returns, they would realize tax savings that could be spend locally, Egan said.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Lisa Leff's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
  • Public Discussion (7)
gordy327

There's no logical, rational, or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry. Nor can anyone come up with any reason detailing how gay marriage can possibly be detrimental to others, heterosexual marriages, or society in general. It's about time this matter went before the courts. This case will certainly be fascinating to watch. I hope things work out for the best.

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jan 7, 2010 8:10 PM EST
Auteur 1536

There's no logical, rational, or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry. Nor can anyone come up with any reason detailing how gay marriage can possibly be detrimental to others, heterosexual marriages, or society in general.

Exactly, which is what makes the whole "gay marriage is bad" argument so stupid and the people who buy it are even more stupid.

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Fri Jan 8, 2010 12:42 AM EST
pjw-708550

We can hope. I think, at this point, that working through the court is a good way to go. I also think that we in the gay community need to work as hard at educating folk about homosexuality as the folk in the heterosexual community work at trying to win their points. This means that real discussion is the name of the game.

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jan 8, 2010 9:27 AM EST
Auteur 1536

Kids with same-sex parents should also be asked to speak out as well. Procreation is another reason the anti-LGBT supporters don't want gay marriage legalized, because they think that LGBT persons can't be good parents.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Fri Jan 8, 2010 6:09 PM EST
pjw-708550

Good point, Auteur.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Sat Jan 9, 2010 9:55 AM EST
Reply
jpacific

My only issue is that we have a (slightly) conservative Supreme Court...

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Thu Jan 7, 2010 9:35 PM EST
eriq samson

I hate articles like this that are incomplete - they don't really say what issues were filed with the court; in fact they don't even seem to understand that a court only decides the issues brought to them

The California Supreme Court was quite specific that they did NOT rule prop 8 was constitutional, but the issue that was brought to them (the specific process by which it was put on the ballot) they were not going to rule unconstitutional because Same sex couples civil rights were only a little bit violated (much like being only a little bit pregnant being the same as not pregnant)

This article is Hot air unless they can get specific about what the issues are, the writer wrote it just to get paid.

That said, The real issue is that the people who pushed Prop 8 were pushing for special rights for heterosexuals, not equal rights. I wish every time some less literate person suggests that same sex couples were trying to get special rights, that someone would point out they are trying to END special rights

  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Thu Jan 7, 2010 11:47 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com